Federal Courts Flashcards
What power does congress have over inferior courts?
To 1) create inferior courts and 2) limit the jurisdiction of those courts.
If congress does not agree with a judicial decision, what can they do in response?
They have the power to change the underlying law. –> A way to avoid separation of powers issues.
What powers does Congress have over substantive laws?
Congress’s can retroactively change the law in a way that affects pending cases,
even if it targets a specific set of cases…
as long as Congress is modifying the underlying substantive law, not just dictating a judicial outcome.
What is congress authority when the federal court renders a final judgement?
They have none.
Which kind of cases can NON Article III judges render final decisions on?
Public rights cases (those arising between governments and private parties such as administrative claims, bankruptcy claims, and regulatory schemes.)
Why must private rights be adjudicated by judges with salary protection and life tenure?
Private rights involve core matters of individual liberty and property.
Decisions in these cases should be made by judges who are free from political pressure or influence.
Life tenure and salary protection insulate judges from retaliation by the political branches
When can a litigant can waive their right to an Art. III judge?
They are asserting an individual right
They give knowing and voluntary consent to the tribunal
The waiver doesn’t undermine the role of Article III courts in separation of powers.
When is a litigant barred from waiving their right to article III judge?
When congress assigns judicial power in a way that threatens core constitutional functions,
is coercive,
or lacks genuine choice.
Balancing test to determine constitutionality of a congressional grant of jurisdiction to a non art. 3 tribunal to adjudicate a claim.
Would likely apply to a case involving private rights – limited delegation.
Schor Balancing Test
1) Extent to which the essential attributes of judicial power are reserved to article III courts.
2) Origin and importance of the right being adjudicated.
3) What are the concerns that drove congress to depart from the requirment of article 3?
4) Did the parties consent to non art 3 tribunal?
When can courts imply a private right of action in a statute?
Courts will only recognize an implied private right of action if there is clear evidence in the statute’s text and structure that Congress intended to create such a right and remedy.
Need rights creating language –> “no person shall be subjected to” OR “individuals have the right to”.
When can courts imply a damages remedy for constitutional violations?
Must be a Bivens style action.
Courts will hesitate to imply a remedy for constitutional violations if:
There are “special factors counseling hesitation” (e.g., separation of powers concerns).
Congress has provided an alternative process for relief, even if it’s incomplete.
What does the 11th amendment do?
Protect states from suit from their own citizens.
What are the recognized exceptions to the 11th amendment.
1) A private party CAN sue a STATE OFFICIAL for prospective injunctive relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law. (in fed. ct.?)
2) Congressional Abrogation –>
Congress makes a clear statement of intent to abrogate and congress is acting pursuant to valid constitutional authority.
3) State consent or waiver.
4) The 11th amendment does not apply to local government. Possible to sue cities or municipal agencies.
5) States have limited immunity in bankruptcy cases.
6) The federal government can sue a state in federal court.
What does section 1983 do?
Creates a civil cause of action for individuals whose constitutional or federal rights have been violated by someone acting under color of state law.
* A section 1983 claim cannot be brought if congress already gave a special set of rules for how to sue.*
Monell Doctrine Re: 1983
This doctrine is a limit on section 1983. Municipalities are liable only if…
The violation came from an official policy, custom, or practice.
What does absolute official immunity do?
Provides a shield from civil liability for certain government officials when they perform specific functions.
Even when they violate someone’s constitutional rights.
What does qualified immunity do?
Provides a shield from liability for government officials performing discretionary functions…
as long as they do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which a reasonable person should know.
What does the Anti -Injunction Act do?
Keeps federal courts from enjoining a state court proceeding. The act has four exceptions…
1) A federal court can enjoin an ongoing state court proceeding when it is expressly authorized by congress.
2) A federal court can enjoin an ongoing state court proceeding when it is necessary to protect the federal courts pre- existing jurisdiction.
3) A federal court can enjoin an ongoing state court proceeding when there is preclusion.
4) A federal court can enjoin an ongoing state court proceeding when the United States is a party.
What does the Pullman Abstention Doctrine say?
Courts may avoid deciding a constitutional question due to unclear state law. This abstention applies in instances where there is an uncertain issue of state law,
the state resolution could moot the constitutional question,
and the plaintiff seeks equitable relief.
Pullman applies even if the plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
What does the Burford abstention doctrine say?
Federal courts may not interfere in complex state administrative processes involving important public policy. This rule applies when state law dominates in the area, there is a specialized state forum for review, and federal court intervention risks mismanagement of state policy.
What does the Younger Abstention doctrine say?
Federal courts cannot interfere with certain ongoing state proceedings out of respect for state sovereignty and federalism. However, there are three exceptions…
1) where the state proceeding is conducted in bad faith,
2) the challenged law is super unconstitutional and
3) there’s no adequate state forum to raise the claims.
Applies to requests for injunctive or declaratory relief
Younger does not bar claims for monetary damages.
BUT federal courts will often stay (pause) the damages claim until the state proceeding is over, to avoid interference.
Preclusion doctrine
A final judgment on the merits bars the same parties (or their privies) from relitigating the same claim that was or could have been raised in the first lawsuit.
State court judgments can preclude federal claims, even when those claims arise under federal law.
What is the key holding in the Migra case?
Many students assume that federal claims (like § 1983 claims) are always safe to bring later in federal court.
Migra teaches that if you choose to litigate in state court first, and the state’s preclusion rules apply, you might lose your chance to bring federal claims elsewhere—even for constitutional rights.
What does colorado river absention say?
A federal court may stay or dismiss a case when there are exceptional circumstances even though traditional absention grounds have not been met.
